3 ms·

> The only acceptable solution would be for apps and websites to simply include a recommended age. Allowing parents to configure their children’s devices to blo

by Steltek 2mo ago

> The only acceptable solution would be for apps and websites to simply include a recommended age. Allowing parents to configure their children’s devices to block services that require users to be older than the specified age or that do not provide an age rating. I'm afraid you'd get the cookie banner problem but way worse. Everyone that's not Meta/Google/Apple would immediately add a legal CYA "18+" age rating and stop thinking any more about it.

grumbel 2mo ago
That's how it should be. Make the Internet 18+ by default and sites targeted at younger audiences can add a more detailed rating. Let people configure their devices however they like it. The whole problem with the regulation we have right now is that it assumes the Internet is for kids, and everything for adults must be hidden. When we really just should declare the whole Internet as 18+ and the sites for kids should be the specially marked exceptions.
- goda90 2mo ago
  Someone would complain that without ID verification kids would be able to sneak onto the regular Internet and therefore we should eliminate privacy on the regular Internet, just like they're doing now.
- johen8 2mo ago
  I never thought about that and I find it might actually be the right way for a solution... I was just looking into the Google Play Store now: in Brazil apps need to have an age rating, facebook and instagram for example are 16+, but browsers like firefox, chrome, etc are rated for 'all ages', even though you can access the whole internet through them. If we actually did what you said and inverted the logic: restrict everything to 18+ and specifically mark what is allowed to under-18s it would make parental controls much more effective.
- kelvinjps10 2mo ago
  So kids shouldn’t have access to sites like Wikipedia? Banning the internet is not the correct solution many kids depend on the internet to have access to education. The argument could be made for banning social media but the whole internet I don’t think it’s the correct approach
  - mrguyorama 2mo ago
    If we had a "Safe for everyone" public internet and a locked down "Prove you are an adult" internet beside it, nothing prevents wikipedia from being on the Safe for Everyone internet. Also, Encarta was a thing. Expensive though. Some states would legislate wikipedia onto the "Adults only" web though because they don't like what it says about things like abortion and trans people. A lot of ecommerce companies would probably be happy with a locked down adults only internet, because it would kick bot protection up a level, and would require a fairly robust solution to it.
    - masfuerte 2mo ago
      [dead]
    - adiabatichottub 2mo ago
      Well... Wikipedia has content that some would consider offensive or unsuitable for children. I'm not in favor of limiting any access to Wikipedia, but I'd consider it a certainty that the day would come when Wikipedia had to decide whether to implement age restrictions or try to police content. I believe that event would change it's governance and social structure in a negative way and significantly degrade it as a public resource.
      - johnnyanmac 2mo ago
        Likewise, some old history documentaries have gore or nudity. I think our current content ratings systems are not as obtuse as "nipple? R rating". >I believe that event would change it's governance and social structure in a negative way and significantly degrade it as a public resource. This can and has already been doing even without age verification. We're way beyond government survellaince in many countries.

by Steltek 2mo ago

grumbel 2mo ago

That's how it should be. Make the Internet 18+ by default and sites targeted at younger audiences can add a more detailed rating. Let people configure their devices however they like it. The whole problem with the regulation we have right now is that it assumes the Internet is for kids, and everything for adults must be hidden. When we really just should declare the whole Internet as 18+ and the sites for kids should be the specially marked exceptions.

goda90 2mo ago
Someone would complain that without ID verification kids would be able to sneak onto the regular Internet and therefore we should eliminate privacy on the regular Internet, just like they're doing now.
johen8 2mo ago
I never thought about that and I find it might actually be the right way for a solution... I was just looking into the Google Play Store now: in Brazil apps need to have an age rating, facebook and instagram for example are 16+, but browsers like firefox, chrome, etc are rated for 'all ages', even though you can access the whole internet through them. If we actually did what you said and inverted the logic: restrict everything to 18+ and specifically mark what is allowed to under-18s it would make parental controls much more effective.
kelvinjps10 2mo ago
So kids shouldn’t have access to sites like Wikipedia? Banning the internet is not the correct solution many kids depend on the internet to have access to education. The argument could be made for banning social media but the whole internet I don’t think it’s the correct approach
- mrguyorama 2mo ago
  If we had a "Safe for everyone" public internet and a locked down "Prove you are an adult" internet beside it, nothing prevents wikipedia from being on the Safe for Everyone internet. Also, Encarta was a thing. Expensive though. Some states would legislate wikipedia onto the "Adults only" web though because they don't like what it says about things like abortion and trans people. A lot of ecommerce companies would probably be happy with a locked down adults only internet, because it would kick bot protection up a level, and would require a fairly robust solution to it.
  - masfuerte 2mo ago
    [dead]
  - adiabatichottub 2mo ago
    Well... Wikipedia has content that some would consider offensive or unsuitable for children. I'm not in favor of limiting any access to Wikipedia, but I'd consider it a certainty that the day would come when Wikipedia had to decide whether to implement age restrictions or try to police content. I believe that event would change it's governance and social structure in a negative way and significantly degrade it as a public resource.
    - johnnyanmac 2mo ago
      Likewise, some old history documentaries have gore or nudity. I think our current content ratings systems are not as obtuse as "nipple? R rating". >I believe that event would change it's governance and social structure in a negative way and significantly degrade it as a public resource. This can and has already been doing even without age verification. We're way beyond government survellaince in many countries.